IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA W.P. NOs.53425-53427/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN SRI. KALPESH V. MEHTA, S/O VIJAY KUMAR R. MEHTA, AGED BOUT 41 YEARS, R/ AT NO.2869, 5TH MAIN, V. V. MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 002 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATHYANARAYANA CHALKE, ADV. FOR SRI. D. R. RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR LEX NEXUS) AND NARENDRA P. SHAH, S/O LATE PASVIR LALCHAND SHAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.590, 4TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE, GOKULAM, MYSURU-570 002 ... RESPONDENT THESE W.P’S ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.9.2016 IN PCR NO. 2559/2015 LATER CONVERTED AS CC NO. 2303/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. I-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AT ANNEXURE-F;
THESE W.P’S COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the records.
2. The petitioner has called in question the order passed by the learned IV Addl. I Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru in CC No.2303/2016 arising out of PCR No.2559/2015.
3. On careful perusal of the records, a person by name Narendra P.Shah has filed a private complaint u/s.200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable u/ss.120, 420, 463, 464 read with Section 34 of IPC. The learned Magistrate after providing opportunity, recorded the sworn statement, after taking cognizance. The complainant examined himself and got marked exhibits C-1 to C-13 and also sought for referring the Xerox copy of the Will produced before the court to the handwriting expert. But, the Trial Court refused to refer the Will to the Hand writing expert, on the ground that the original Will is not available to the court.
4. On further perusal of the complaint averments, sworn statement and the document produced the before the court, it reveals that the learned Magistrate prima facie satisfied with regard to the commission of the offence tentatively by the accused persons and issued process against the petitioner.
5. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Crl.RP No.352/2016. The learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 16.10.2017 dismissed the said Revision Petition by a detailed judgment.
6. The allegations made in the complaint is that the petitioner has produced a concocted Will alleged to have been executed by one Taramathi V. Mehta for the purpose of claiming her share in the partnership firm of the respondent. It is stated in the complaint that in the year 2008, the Company came to know that the said Will was forged and they have issued notice to the petitioner calling upon to produce the original Will. But, the petitioner neither produced any Will nor desisted from claiming the share in the Company.
7. The specific allegations are that the said Will was fabricated and forged by the petitioner for the purpose of claiming the share of Taramathi from the respondent.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the Will has already been given to the respondent and therefore, there is no question of concoction of any Will as the same has been executed by Taramathi. Further, he contends before the court that the court has not formulated any opinion with regard to the prima facie material available on record to come to the conclusion that the accused have committed such offences. The above said grounds, in my opinion, have been in detail considered by the trial Court. The record further discloses that the complainant examined himself and produced 13 documents as Exhibits C-1 to C-13. The court has perused all the documents in detail and thereafter came to the conclusion that in the absence of the original Will, Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be interfered at that particular stage. Therefore, it clearly discloses that the learned Magistrate has gone through the complaint averments and the documents produced before the court and thereafter satisfied himself that the complainant has made out a prima facie case and issued process against the accused for the commission of the offences.
9. When the learned Magistrate shown to have applied his judicious mind, the complaint averments and also the sworn statement and also the documents produced before the court on one way or the other, in my opinion, it suffice the requirement of law and the learned Magistrate is well within his jurisdiction and issued process .
Under the above said circumstances, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with such an order. Hence, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the trial Court for discharge if advised.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*